[MSN] David Gill: The right to everything that's in the ground

[Museum Security Network Mailing list]

Thursday, November 29, 2007

"The right to everything that's in the ground"


It was a coincidence that my posting on Philippe de Montebello,
director of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, appeared the week that he
was interviewed by Richard Lacayo ("A Talk With: Philippe de
Montebello", "More Talk With: Philippe de Montebello", November 27/28,
2007).

I had commented on a 2006, post Euphronios krater return announcement,
where de Montebello had attacked archaeologists for their emphasis on
context. And he has once again shown his basic misunderstanding of
archaeological stratigraphy:


One can question whether one particular discipline can arrogate to
itself the right to everything that's in the ground. There are many
different contexts, many different ways to look at these objects. So
you have a discipline that goes too far in claiming that an object is
of no merit, of no value, the moment it's out of the ground and you
don't know who buried it. That's one context. It's obviously a very
precious one, because once an object is out of that context the
information is not retrieveable. But it's not the only context.


My students will be familiar with the different contexts - I would
call them the life-cycle - of, say, Greek pottery. An Athenian
red-figured pot could be made in Attica, Greece; transported to Italy;
buried in an Etruscan tomb; dug up in the nineteenth century; passed
into a private collection; dispersed at auction; and end up in some
internationally famous collection.

My students will also be aware of the different ways to study and look
at Greek pottery - and that includes iconography and
"connoisseurship".

But I would still stress the importance of archaeological context
because that provides a chronological, social and iconographic
framework for understanding this part of Mediterranean material
culture.

And that context forms part of the universal human heritage: a
heritage that will be cherished by archaeologists who will be puzzled
by de Montebello's suggestion that they have "the right to everything
that's in the ground". Possession is more the domain of museum
curators and private collectors than that of the archaeologist.

De Montebello also comments on the new world where North American
museums take ethics more seriously. In particular he draws attention
to the acquisition policy formulated by the Association of Art Museum
Directors (AAMD). He observes:
Acquisitions of antiquities on the part of American museums have
fallen to almost zero. Out of a sense of new ethical standards and a
not inconsequential fiduciary responsibility — they don't want to make
an acquisition that is likely to be subject to claims — most museums
have imposed on themselves standards that, as a matter of praxis, are
even more stringent than ten years. And so it's been very effective on
one level — if you take pleasure in the fact that antiquities are
practically no longer entering American collections.
The suggestion of a ten year deadline is interesting and an idea that
I have discussed elsewhere arguing that it is inappropriate. It would
have allowed the Met to retain all but two of the pieces - a Laconian
cup (1999.527) and and an Attic red-figured psykter (1996.250) - which
it agreed to return to Italy last year.

De Montebello also suggests that archaeologists have a "debt" to
museums. He claims:
Archeologists presumably became interested in archeology by visiting
museums. They forget this very conveniently. They become practicing
archeologists and then their only interest is in the "find spot."
I do not know the basis of his claim, though I am sure it is true for
some. But that does not mean that archaeologists do not have the right
to comment on the destruction of the archaeological record to provide
stock for the antiquities market.

http://lootingmatters.blogspot.com/2007/11/right-to-everything-thats-in-ground.html